MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1505921775

Behavioral contagion reconsidered: self-harm among adolescent psychiatric inpatients: a five-year study.

2003· article· en· W1505921775 on OpenAlexaff
David Cawthorpe, D Somers, Ted Wilkes, M. Phil

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHarmPsychiatryPsychologyCohortClinical psychologyMedicineSocial psychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine the occurrence of behavioral contagion among inpatient adolescent psychiatric patients in terms of past self-harm related behaviors. Our goal was to isolate persistent self-harm behavior from self-harm behavior that could be considered truly contagious. METHOD: We employed 5 years retrospective cohort study design in order to compare the occurrence of self-harm as inpatients among those with and without histories of self-harm behavior. RESULTS: Our results indicate that the spontaneous occurrence of self-harm among inpatients without a history of self-harm is very low. While there appears to be a group that exhibits self-harm as inpatients, the tendency in this group is more towards a reduction of the intensity or a cessation of self-harming behavior. CONCLUSIONS: Contagious self-harm does not appear to be a problem among inpatients with long stays on psychiatric treatment units. The overall tendency among inpatient adolescent psychiatric patients, especially those among those with histories of self-harm behavior is away from self-harming behavior.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.251 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies→French-language works237,207→